The minds had long ago come up with a proper name for it; they called it the Irreal, but they thought of it as Infinite Fun. That was what they really knew it as. The Land of Infinite Fun. –Iain M. Banks, Excession

The thread concerned advice for a writer wishing to try Emacs and Org-mode. What I found interesting is that the writer was currently using Scrivener. I've written before about my belief that Emacs can do everything Scrivener can. The thread doesn't address that but it is interesting that some of the commenters moved from Scrivener to Emacs/Org1.

Writers, and everyone else for that matter, should use whatever tools they're comfortable and productive with but the thread is another piece of evidence that there's no reason that tool can't be Emacs.

Footnotes:

Not everyone agrees. In this post, Charlie Stross discusses his use of Scrivener and his belief that it's much better than Org mode. There's additional discussion of this point in the comments so when you get to the post, search for Scrivener to see everything.

I think Stross misunderstands what Org-mode is all about. In his defense of Scrivener, in a comment he says:

. . . the merchant princes project I'm working on is a hierarchical collection of roughly 800 sub-documents, including PDFs and web archives glommed from research sources, doodlings, notes, several earlier novels in the series (hyperlinked and tagged for searching), and the trilogy in progress (which itself consists of around 33 chapters each containing 5-10 sub-documents). Oh, and that's without the metadata tagging facilities to help me filter and track what I'm doing. In other words, text editing is just part of what Scrivener does -- and quite a small part. It's actually a project management tool, not a word processor.